Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Glark said:
“When the devil comes along, speaking in the name of equality, who can oppose him?”
Click to expand...
This world is centred on power, where the universe exists through an act of divine Love. As a result of our original choice, turning from God and spreading sin in the world, suffering ensues; separated from God’s healing grace, death prevails. But, mankind individually and as one Church, in and through Christ, whether recognized or not, is on a journey to salvation, to reclaim our position, becoming truly children of God.

Lost and through some combination of ignorance and pride, we try to make this world heaven. Utopian fantasies of power to all people, tolerance of everything but that which smacks of intolerance, continual growth and improvement replace the reality of the human condition rooted in sin, and its solution - Love.

Evolution can be understood as a vain hope that things will get better in this world. Unfortunately over all, we are getting duller actually. In spite of those demonstrating that improved nutrition, education and public health measures improve intelligence, an important study showed that we are losing an average of one IQ point a decade, fourteen since such measurements were conducted in Darwin’s time (fittingly). It’s difficult to witness the mess the world is in, from the disgusting behaviour of our leaders to the terrible soul destroying choices we may make in our daily lives. The 2001 Space Odyssey vision of apes clubbing each other, rising up into the stars and onward to become a new form of being having touched cold, dark, geometrically rational matter assuages the anxieties that come with a hard look at the world as it is.

Thereby offering some hope, Darwinism also resonates with the realities of this world - random mutation and natural selection, life and death, Eros and Thanatos, sex and power. It justifies the world and offers the illusion of hope in time. Science was to lead us out of the quagmire, and there are still ardent believers. Just one look at the fancy gadgets we are using in this moment, and we may come to convince ourselves that we can perform miracles.

The villain becomes religion, seen as an opiate to placate the masses into submission by the strong. Abandonning it as restrictive superstition, mankind drifts further from the truth, With that, the freedom that comes with discipline founded on charity is replaced by that of lawlessness, and ultimately enslavement to our passions and fears. And, what we are left with is evolution into savagery.

But, things aren’t bleak at all, although they do make the heart drop, In Christ we find a hope that is so real, it is almost tangible. We are ok. All we need do is accept those graces offered us. Our destiny lies at the Heart of the Triune Godhead from whom all creation streams.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
40.png
Glark:
Well, okay - get a load of my latest theory: If you dump a million bricks on a vacant piece of land and come back in a billion years, it’s possible those bricks will have arranged themselves to form a twenty room mansion. The structure may look designed, by it wasn’t. Scientific truth is stranger than fiction!
Click to expand...
Once again the creationism ‘analogy’ fails to include natural selection. Your analogy is useless because evolution includes natural selection and your bricks do not.

rossum
Click to expand...
That analogy doesn’t go far enough, correct. We need to add a few earthquakes, tornadoes and tsunamis to toss the bricks around (random mutation) and have them land on one another. The “structures” so formed will collapse if not solid (natural selection). But, we aren’t just talking about a house, but of an entire community including dwellings, churches, schools, shopping malls and funeral homes. Of course wind, rain and shaky ground do more to demolish than to build, but that’s in keeping with how entropy works. The theory goes that given billions of years we will get what we see today.
 
Last edited:
As with evolution, there is another key missing.
The God given desire to live.
Or perhaps in this case, stack.
 
I would agree but let’s be clear.
Molecules have a desire to “stack” themselves into living forms?
I wouldn’t think so, although they are made to be “stacked”.
But we do have a desire for life, and call it hope.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
Natural selection is not intelligent. It acts like a sieve; how much intelligence does a sieve need?
Click to expand...
Gazing into the future I foresee my mind becoming an ever more efficient sieve. Intelligence is a complicated phenomenon that we wouldn’t be wrong in believing to be inversely proportional to what it fails to grasp.

I would say Natural selection is more like a quiz show buzzer. A new broom at work, sweeping it clean of the old-timers. An “F” on an exam paper. What happens after you eat a chicken salad sandwich gone bad. I like analogies, but I’d better stop before the sieve lets through something that might embarrass me later. If I can catch it that is.
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
40.png
goout:
Who claimed it was? Who even mentioned infallibility?
Click to expand...
Only me. My point is, since the Church is not infallible in matters of science, she could be dead wrong in accepting evolution as fact. After all, we are talking about the greatest demonic hoax ever perpertrated on mankind.
Click to expand...
Glark. You are associating the Catholic Church with the promotion of a demonic hoax. That doesn’t seem to be a particularly wholesome Catholic point of view.
Does it occur to you that you might be in error?

Infallibility has no application here. The Catholic Church does not do physical science. The Church can guide the faithful in matters that pertain to faith. Faith and reason go hand in hand so the Church comments on these matters where it is fruitful. The Church does not endorse a particular theory. John Paul 2 merely acknowledges the validity of these concepts and their general acceptance by scientists of many stripes. It’s not any Pope’s competence to do science.

Perhaps the reason he speaks to these matters is that so much ignorance exists.
 
Hurricane in a junkyard. It will naturally select the required parts to build/assemble whatever. Not credible. Life is an “intelligent project.”
 
No, not at all. The Church has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences and its own Observatory. It does comment on science all the time. The idea that the Church cannot comment on science has been condemned. And here’s an example of an infallible statement:

"The Time Question

"Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.:
  • Source: Catholic Answers
 
Ed.
Where did I say the Church does not comment on science?
As usual, over-zeal hinders patient and thoughtful reading.
"The Time Question

"Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.:

Source: Catholic Answers
Click to expand...
Isn’t that what I just said in my last post?
Who are you debating with, and what is really causing you discomfort?
 
Last edited:
How does this comport with theistic evolution?

Romans 5:12 St Paul is writing about Christ’s image being used to form Adam even though Jesus was born thousands of years later.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
Hurricane in a junkyard. It will naturally select the required parts to build/assemble whatever. Not credible. Life is an “intelligent project.”
Click to expand...
Right.
Evolution is a good description of how that happens. The thinking is just that: intelligible science. Are you familiar with “Logos”?
🤔
 
goout said:
Evolution is a good description of how that happens.
Click to expand...
Perhaps if you explain what you mean by evolution and what exactly it says about Adam’s creation, it would convince Ed and enlighten me. I’m serious, because to me it isn’t even good science. I may be better able to explain my issues with it if you explain what you think is good about its description. We can all learn from this, even if we don’t end up agreeing.
 
Aloysium said:
40.png
goout:
Evolution is a good description of how that happens.
Click to expand...
I’m serious, because to me it isn’t even good science. I may be better able to explain my issues with it if you explain what you think is good about its description. We can all learn from this, even if we don’t end up agreeing.
Click to expand...
How would you know evolution is not good science, especially in light of it’s acceptance as a general explanation of a natural process, even by Popes?

If you’re a credentialed scientist that has groundbreaking material, the onus is on you to show why the general, almost universal, scientific community is so wrong.
If not, what difference would it make for me to lay out elementary scientific principles?This is a matter of you educating yourself in basic science.
That is your responsibility, not mine.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
40.png
goout:
Evolution is a good description of how that happens.
Click to expand...
Perhaps if you explain what you mean by evolution and what exactly it says about Adam’s creation, it would convince Ed and enlighten me. I’m serious, because to me it isn’t even good science.
Click to expand...
“Good science” does not need to explain Adam’s creation as distinct from the creation of any other man. The uniqueness of Adam has no basis within the rules of science, until someone comes up with a scientific definition of who this Adam fellow was.
 
I have noticed some replies simply ignore Church teaching in order to force-fit evolution into the Genesis revelation. Speaking generally, if the Bible is not a science text then quit referring to it as if it was.
 
Then quit worrying about it. It doesn’t matter, not to the “science is all there is” group. Leave it alone. The certainty of Divine revelation is not science but is 100% true. Adam and Eve were two individuals. They were given specific gifts from God, including immortality.
 
Last edited:
Structure of a Spliceosome: Molecular Framework for Understanding Pre-mRNA Splicing

Fantastic High Level Programming all accomplished by blind unguided chance and natural selection of course. 😀

A common building block


 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top